Library

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Key words: Clinical practice guidelines — Consensus development conference — Literature search — Publication bias — Retrieval bias  (1)
  • Key words: Consensus development conference — Diverticulitis — Contrast enema — Hartmann resection — Laparoscopic colectomy — Intraabdominal infections  (1)
Material
Years
Keywords
  • 1
    ISSN: 1432-2218
    Keywords: Key words: Consensus development conference — Diverticulitis — Contrast enema — Hartmann resection — Laparoscopic colectomy — Intraabdominal infections
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Background: With the aim of resolving the current controversy over the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease, this consensus development conference set out to summarize the actual state of the art. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of international experts (n= 16) was selected to take part in the consensus process. Prior to the conference, all experts were asked to answer a series of questions on diverticular disease. The consensus statement compiled out of these evaluations was modified during a joint meeting of the panel members, then presented for discussion in a public session, and finally revised by the expert panel. The finalized statement was mailed to all panel members for approval (Delphi method). Results: Asymptomatic diverticulosis, diverticular disease (with actual or recurrent symptoms), and complicated diverticular disease were defined separately. No agreement was reached on whether barium enema or colonoscopy is the better choice as an initial diagnostic tool in uncomplicated cases. In complicated cases, computed tomography is recommended for diagnosis. After two attacks of diverticular disease, elective resection should be considered. For patients in whom a concomitant carcinoma cannot be excluded and those with chronic complications (fistula, stenosis, or bleeding) surgery is also indicated. Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is recommended only for uncomplicated and, after percutaneous drainage of abscesses, Hinchey stage I and II cases. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery has already begun to influence the management of diverticular disease, but the randomized controlled trials needed to support therapy decisions are largely missing.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Springer
    Surgical endoscopy and other interventional techniques 14 (2000), S. 908 -910 
    ISSN: 1432-2218
    Keywords: Key words: Clinical practice guidelines — Consensus development conference — Literature search — Publication bias — Retrieval bias
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Medicine
    Notes: Abstract Background: Ideally, a consensus panel combines expert knowledge with external evidence derived from the literature. To date, many consensus conferences do not use a structured approach to search the literature, but simply compile an add-on reference list from all papers cited by the panelists. This study examined how well such panelists retrieved the relevant literature. Methods: We used the reference lists of nine surgeons who took part in a consensus conference on common bile duct stones. We included all papers that were referred to as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We then compared this list with a database search in order to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Results: The nine experts cited between 35 and 518 papers, but only eight papers on average were RCTs. Of the 49 papers that the experts believed to be RCTs, only 23 actually were RCTs. The sensitivity resp. specificity for correctly identifying an RCT was 0.21 (95% Cl, 0.11–0.30) resp. 0.80 (95% Cl; 0.64–0.95). RCTs that included the word ``randomized'' in their title were significantly more likely to be identified (relative risk, 1.31; 95% Cl, 1.18–1.45). Conclusion: Our data indicate that consensus panelists usually do not perform systematic literature searches, but simply use their favorite papers to back up their arguments. Because this may lead to a biased selection of the evidence base on which the consensus statements are founded, a systematic search of all relevant articles should become a mandatory task in any consensus or guideline process.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...